Canada Navy Canada Surface Combatant (CSC) Program

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
152
Reactions
2 259
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
" Future-Proofing the LM/BAE CSC TYPE 26 FRIGATE"

I have witten an article on "future-proofing" the CSC Type 26 Frigate that forum members may wish to comment on. This article is In My Own Opinion (IMO) and not those of others. Please feel free to comment and discuss. Cheers!

“future-proofing” the LM/BAE TYPE 26 CSC FRIGATE

The process of choosing the winning design for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) has been long and arduous. Now that the Locheed Martin/BAE consortium has won the contract to design the Type 26 CSC, it is time to debate what weapons and sensor requirements and capabilities will provide Canada and the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) with the best bang for the buck on these 15 nearly 8000-ton frigates over the next several decades. These frigates will be nearly 50% larger than the Halifax-class Frigates and nearly as large as most modern destroyers. Designed to be multi-modal and versatile, the CSC Type 26 Frigate is equipped with a reconfigurable mission bay for light boats, unmanned surface/aerial vehicles, and/or cargo containers. This will allow the vessels to be reconfigured depending on mission and requirements. Leadmark 2050, is clear: while the CSC will undertake a variety of mission types, it will be designed primarily to operate in a high-end war-fighting environment. That makes sense since a ship designed to just fight pirates and provide Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/DR) wouldn’t fare well against modern anti-ship cruise missiles or torpedoes.

Operating in a high-end environment requires a Combat Management System (CMS) that tightly integrates the ship’s weapons, sensors, communications and Tactical Data Links (TDLs) to allow it to defend itself, and take the fight to an adversary. This is especially true for air defence, as the nature of contemporary air threats means that the ship’s crew may only have seconds to react to a missile threat coming over the horizon. The CMS 330 will be key to this task, as it must gather and display data from the ship’s sensors, activate active and passive countermeasures, and cue incoming threats to its weapon systems much faster than ever before.

There are three categories of air defence capabilities that the government must consider when “future-proofing” the CSC’s Type 26 design: short-to medium-range; long-range; and Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD). Having an effective short-to medium-range air defence capability is perhaps most important in terms of ship survivability. But being able to detect and engage threats at longer ranges will become just as important, as threats become more advanced. So, decisions made about the CMS now, will likely have long-term effects down the road. Missiles such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), with ranges of around 50 kilometers (kms), will likely form the main defence of the CSC’s short-to medium-range air capability, so having a Combat Management System (CMS) that works well with it will be critical. Lockheed Martin (LM) Canada’s CMS 330 is already integrated with ESSM II in mind.

In terms of providing a long-range air defence capability, things get more complicated. Two of three systems on offer (CMS 330 and 9LV) have not yet been integrated with long-range air defence missiles such as the SM-3 or SM-6 RIM-174 Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM) with ranges of over 150 kms. The inclusion of Tomahawk long range attack missiles to the CSC MK 41 VLS system arsenal is a game changer for Canada. The RCN’s needs dictate what systems are required, given the importance of long-range air defence in the CSC and Area Air Warfare (AAW) roles, that the government has already stated the CSC Type 26 must fulfill. That is not to say longer-ranged missile systems cannot be integrated into the CMS 330, however systems integration is a complex process and additional integration increases the risk of cost overruns and delays. The Australian Type 26 Hunter class Frigates faced the same problem. Australia’s solution was to “combine” their 9LV/CEAFAR radar combination with the US Navy’s (USN) Aegis CMS to facilitate the integration of future US missile systems like the SM-3/SM-6 to give their Type 26 Frigate variant, a greater long-range air defence capability. By doing this, Australia is hedging the future viability of its Type 26 Frigates on the continued ability of the USN to be on the cutting edge of naval weapons and sensors technology. Having Aegis CMS and their CEAFAR S band long range radar on its Type 26 ships reduces the burden (and cost) of integrating future American weapons systems and sensors into the Royal Australian Navy’s CMS architecture.

The Canadian government must think carefully about its approach to ‘future-proofing’ the CSC to ensure that the ships can be upgraded as cost-efficiently as possible if it wants to include a sea-based BMD capability in the future. Currently, the US, Australia, Spain and Japan are the only four countries with an effective sea-based BMD capability to track and engage Theatre Ballistic Missiles using a special configuration of the Aegis CMS, the SM-3/SM-6 missile system and the MK 41 VLS. If Aegis BMD is included in the LM Type 26 CSC along with the robust AN/SPY 7 V1/V2 air search radar system to compliment the US, UK, AUS, JAPAN and SPAIN 3D search radar systems, Canada will then be able to lessen future integration costs through collaboration with all four Aegis BMD allies. If Aegis BMD is not included, Canada would then be responsible for integrating future weapons systems and sensors into its CMS architecture which has the potential of increasing costs. Given the nature of threats the CSC is likely to face in the future, careful deliberation is required when deciding which CMS best meets Canada’s short-and long-term requirements. The incoming missile risk profiles associated with the LM CMS 330, are likely to be important factors in positioning the CSC Type 26 for future upgrades. Judicious planning should ensure that Canada is able to field an effective, upgradeable CSC that can fulfill the government’s requirements now and in the future. A part of this would be that the government should reconsider the decision made by then, Prime Minister Paul Martin in 2005 to not directly join the US BMD program. If this decision is reversed, the Canadian government must then restart discussions with the Americans with the possibility of participating in Continental and Naval BMD systems. Canada remains largely alone among its major allies in not directly participating in some form of BMD. It is time for the government to listen to the growing voices within Canada in support of BMD.

The MK 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) could be reconfigured from 32 to 48 or even 64 cells to accommodate a precision strike and BMD capability. The $61 Billion (CAD) allocated for the Type 26 build and equipment acquisition, will ensure the RCN gets the ‘best bang for the buck’ enabling a more robust AAW MK 41 VLS with a BMD capability along with an “Aegis-style platform” as recommended to the government by the Senate Committee on National Defence in May 2017 (Eleventh Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence-A Plan For The Future- Pg. 40 Recommendation 15). The first four CSC Type 26 frigates could very easily have this extended AAW capability incorporated into their design.

While the CSCs will be based on the British design City class Type 26 Global Combat Ship, systems and capabilities will be tailored to Canadian requirements, a process which will ultimately produce a uniquely Canadian ship. Although the weapons, sensors and combat systems fitted to the LM/BAE Type 26 Frigate, will differ in some respects to the Canadianized CSC Type 26 Frigate, there will still be significant commonality of components coming from the UK’s City class Type 26 design, especially the propulsion system, CAAM weapon system and sonar systems, along with secondary X/I band navigation radars. Updated Naval Surface Missiles (NSM) silos will be fitted, although the SM-6 RIM-174 ERAM will also have a surface-to-surface missile (SSM) mode. A mandatory requirement for the Canadian platform is the LM AN/SPY 7 V1/V2 fixed phased array radar. What will remain unchanged is the ship’s acoustically quiet hull, an essential feature for the kind of anti-submarine warfare on which the RCN has focused since the Second World War. The ship will also have advanced sonar and towed array systems for tracking submarines. In the realm of submarine detection and warfare, surface ships have long been enabled by helicopters. As such, the Canadian CSC will possess an expanded flight deck capable of landing the Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone and Boeing Chinook helicopters. The hangar/mission bay will be able to accommodate up to two Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone aircraft, which are currently being delivered to the Canadian Armed Forces. It will also have the SKELDAR V-200 drones for aerial surveillance. The Canadian government will fund the cost of refining the BAE Type 26 into the detailed LM CSC Type 26 design. Success will vindicate the CSC design and should Canada adopt the Aegis BMD program as Australia has potentially done with the USN, these three close allies would have superior interoperability and capabilities unmatched by any other allied Nation.

Conclusion:

Procurement of the CSC Type 26 Frigates into the RCN will likely take place throughout the next decade or so to gradually replace the Halifax-class which is slated for retirement in the early to mid 2030s. Once brought into service, the CSC will be the backbone of the RCN for a generation, serving well into the 2050s. If Canada is to gain the most value for money, in a project, the effects of which, are planned to span more than 40 years from construction to full operation to disposal, the weapons and sensors applied to the LM Type 26 CSC Frigate, combined with short-medium range ESSM’s and long range SM3/SM6 missiles with BMD, paired with the AN/SPY 7 V1/V2 S-band 3D Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR), then an Aegis BMD system makes common sense. The CSC Type 26 will then, provide the RCN with not only the most effective ASW hull specifically designed for the role, considering noise signatures and sensor and weapon use, but also the clearest winner in AAW capabilities and “future-proofing.”
 

AlphaMike

Experienced member
Moderator
Indonesia Moderator
Messages
4,483
Reactions
2 7,419
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
" Future-Proofing the LM/BAE CSC TYPE 26 FRIGATE"

I have witten an article on "future-proofing" the CSC Type 26 Frigate that forum members may wish to comment on. This article is In My Own Opinion (IMO) and not those of others. Please feel free to comment and discuss. Cheers!

“future-proofing” the LM/BAE TYPE 26 CSC FRIGATE

The process of choosing the winning design for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) has been long and arduous. Now that the Locheed Martin/BAE consortium has won the contract to design the Type 26 CSC, it is time to debate what weapons and sensor requirements and capabilities will provide Canada and the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) with the best bang for the buck on these 15 nearly 8000-ton frigates over the next several decades. These frigates will be nearly 50% larger than the Halifax-class Frigates and nearly as large as most modern destroyers. Designed to be multi-modal and versatile, the CSC Type 26 Frigate is equipped with a reconfigurable mission bay for light boats, unmanned surface/aerial vehicles, and/or cargo containers. This will allow the vessels to be reconfigured depending on mission and requirements. Leadmark 2050, is clear: while the CSC will undertake a variety of mission types, it will be designed primarily to operate in a high-end war-fighting environment. That makes sense since a ship designed to just fight pirates and provide Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/DR) wouldn’t fare well against modern anti-ship cruise missiles or torpedoes.

Operating in a high-end environment requires a Combat Management System (CMS) that tightly integrates the ship’s weapons, sensors, communications and Tactical Data Links (TDLs) to allow it to defend itself, and take the fight to an adversary. This is especially true for air defence, as the nature of contemporary air threats means that the ship’s crew may only have seconds to react to a missile threat coming over the horizon. The CMS 330 will be key to this task, as it must gather and display data from the ship’s sensors, activate active and passive countermeasures, and cue incoming threats to its weapon systems much faster than ever before.

There are three categories of air defence capabilities that the government must consider when “future-proofing” the CSC’s Type 26 design: short-to medium-range; long-range; and Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD). Having an effective short-to medium-range air defence capability is perhaps most important in terms of ship survivability. But being able to detect and engage threats at longer ranges will become just as important, as threats become more advanced. So, decisions made about the CMS now, will likely have long-term effects down the road. Missiles such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), with ranges of around 50 kilometers (kms), will likely form the main defence of the CSC’s short-to medium-range air capability, so having a Combat Management System (CMS) that works well with it will be critical. Lockheed Martin (LM) Canada’s CMS 330 is already integrated with ESSM II in mind.

In terms of providing a long-range air defence capability, things get more complicated. Two of three systems on offer (CMS 330 and 9LV) have not yet been integrated with long-range air defence missiles such as the SM-3 or SM-6 RIM-174 Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM) with ranges of over 150 kms. The inclusion of Tomahawk long range attack missiles to the CSC MK 41 VLS system arsenal is a game changer for Canada. The RCN’s needs dictate what systems are required, given the importance of long-range air defence in the CSC and Area Air Warfare (AAW) roles, that the government has already stated the CSC Type 26 must fulfill. That is not to say longer-ranged missile systems cannot be integrated into the CMS 330, however systems integration is a complex process and additional integration increases the risk of cost overruns and delays. The Australian Type 26 Hunter class Frigates faced the same problem. Australia’s solution was to “combine” their 9LV/CEAFAR radar combination with the US Navy’s (USN) Aegis CMS to facilitate the integration of future US missile systems like the SM-3/SM-6 to give their Type 26 Frigate variant, a greater long-range air defence capability. By doing this, Australia is hedging the future viability of its Type 26 Frigates on the continued ability of the USN to be on the cutting edge of naval weapons and sensors technology. Having Aegis CMS and their CEAFAR S band long range radar on its Type 26 ships reduces the burden (and cost) of integrating future American weapons systems and sensors into the Royal Australian Navy’s CMS architecture.

The Canadian government must think carefully about its approach to ‘future-proofing’ the CSC to ensure that the ships can be upgraded as cost-efficiently as possible if it wants to include a sea-based BMD capability in the future. Currently, the US, Australia, Spain and Japan are the only four countries with an effective sea-based BMD capability to track and engage Theatre Ballistic Missiles using a special configuration of the Aegis CMS, the SM-3/SM-6 missile system and the MK 41 VLS. If Aegis BMD is included in the LM Type 26 CSC along with the robust AN/SPY 7 V1/V2 air search radar system to compliment the US, UK, AUS, JAPAN and SPAIN 3D search radar systems, Canada will then be able to lessen future integration costs through collaboration with all four Aegis BMD allies. If Aegis BMD is not included, Canada would then be responsible for integrating future weapons systems and sensors into its CMS architecture which has the potential of increasing costs. Given the nature of threats the CSC is likely to face in the future, careful deliberation is required when deciding which CMS best meets Canada’s short-and long-term requirements. The incoming missile risk profiles associated with the LM CMS 330, are likely to be important factors in positioning the CSC Type 26 for future upgrades. Judicious planning should ensure that Canada is able to field an effective, upgradeable CSC that can fulfill the government’s requirements now and in the future. A part of this would be that the government should reconsider the decision made by then, Prime Minister Paul Martin in 2005 to not directly join the US BMD program. If this decision is reversed, the Canadian government must then restart discussions with the Americans with the possibility of participating in Continental and Naval BMD systems. Canada remains largely alone among its major allies in not directly participating in some form of BMD. It is time for the government to listen to the growing voices within Canada in support of BMD.

The MK 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) could be reconfigured from 32 to 48 or even 64 cells to accommodate a precision strike and BMD capability. The $61 Billion (CAD) allocated for the Type 26 build and equipment acquisition, will ensure the RCN gets the ‘best bang for the buck’ enabling a more robust AAW MK 41 VLS with a BMD capability along with an “Aegis-style platform” as recommended to the government by the Senate Committee on National Defence in May 2017 (Eleventh Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence-A Plan For The Future- Pg. 40 Recommendation 15). The first four CSC Type 26 frigates could very easily have this extended AAW capability incorporated into their design.

While the CSCs will be based on the British design City class Type 26 Global Combat Ship, systems and capabilities will be tailored to Canadian requirements, a process which will ultimately produce a uniquely Canadian ship. Although the weapons, sensors and combat systems fitted to the LM/BAE Type 26 Frigate, will differ in some respects to the Canadianized CSC Type 26 Frigate, there will still be significant commonality of components coming from the UK’s City class Type 26 design, especially the propulsion system, CAAM weapon system and sonar systems, along with secondary X/I band navigation radars. Updated Naval Surface Missiles (NSM) silos will be fitted, although the SM-6 RIM-174 ERAM will also have a surface-to-surface missile (SSM) mode. A mandatory requirement for the Canadian platform is the LM AN/SPY 7 V1/V2 fixed phased array radar. What will remain unchanged is the ship’s acoustically quiet hull, an essential feature for the kind of anti-submarine warfare on which the RCN has focused since the Second World War. The ship will also have advanced sonar and towed array systems for tracking submarines. In the realm of submarine detection and warfare, surface ships have long been enabled by helicopters. As such, the Canadian CSC will possess an expanded flight deck capable of landing the Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone and Boeing Chinook helicopters. The hangar/mission bay will be able to accommodate up to two Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone aircraft, which are currently being delivered to the Canadian Armed Forces. It will also have the SKELDAR V-200 drones for aerial surveillance. The Canadian government will fund the cost of refining the BAE Type 26 into the detailed LM CSC Type 26 design. Success will vindicate the CSC design and should Canada adopt the Aegis BMD program as Australia has potentially done with the USN, these three close allies would have superior interoperability and capabilities unmatched by any other allied Nation.

Conclusion:

Procurement of the CSC Type 26 Frigates into the RCN will likely take place throughout the next decade or so to gradually replace the Halifax-class which is slated for retirement in the early to mid 2030s. Once brought into service, the CSC will be the backbone of the RCN for a generation, serving well into the 2050s. If Canada is to gain the most value for money, in a project, the effects of which, are planned to span more than 40 years from construction to full operation to disposal, the weapons and sensors applied to the LM Type 26 CSC Frigate, combined with short-medium range ESSM’s and long range SM3/SM6 missiles with BMD, paired with the AN/SPY 7 V1/V2 S-band 3D Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR), then an Aegis BMD system makes common sense. The CSC Type 26 will then, provide the RCN with not only the most effective ASW hull specifically designed for the role, considering noise signatures and sensor and weapon use, but also the clearest winner in AAW capabilities and “future-proofing.”
hello @DAVEBLOGGINS , what do think if the space used for the RHIB in middle section are instead removed and the space used for another addition of VLS cells, from the look of it, 16x VLS could be fitted on the peripherals akin to the config of a Zumwalt class MK-57 VLS.

While the canisters are moved a bit to the center. IMO, Canada's likely adversary like that of China and Russia are all gearing even the smallest of their ships into packing as much VLS as possible. So it justifies that for a ship with a displacement of 8000 tons like the CSC armed with no less than 90 VLS. Do you think it could be possible to do so,as part of future proofing the ships??
Canadian-Surface-Combatant-CSC-Royal-Canadian-Navy-stern-1024x768.jpg


Canadian-Surface-Combatant-CSC-Royal-Canadian-Navy-dsei-2019-1024x768.jpg


the RHIB's could be moved into a ramp style launching position like this.
4-rhib-deployment.jpg


and as for the CMS, if the RCN are gearing towards ABM capabilities with the ship then they should go with the AEGIS, especially the latest baseline 10 iteration when available. Should be ready once the ships are starting to take shape.
 

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
152
Reactions
2 259
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
hello @DAVEBLOGGINS , what do think if the space used for the RHIB in middle section are instead removed and the space used for another addition of VLS cells, from the look of it, 16x VLS could be fitted on the peripherals akin to the config of a Zumwalt class MK-57 VLS.

While the canisters are moved a bit to the center. IMO, Canada's likely adversary like that of China and Russia are all gearing even the smallest of their ships into packing as much VLS as possible. So it justifies that for a ship with a displacement of 8000 tons like the CSC armed with no less than 90 VLS. Do you think it could be possible to do so,as part of future proofing the ships??
Canadian-Surface-Combatant-CSC-Royal-Canadian-Navy-stern-1024x768.jpg


Canadian-Surface-Combatant-CSC-Royal-Canadian-Navy-dsei-2019-1024x768.jpg


the RHIB's could be moved into a ramp style launching position like this.
4-rhib-deployment.jpg


and as for the CMS, if the RCN are gearing towards ABM capabilities with the ship then they should go with the AEGIS, especially the latest baseline 10 iteration when available. Should be ready once the ships are starting to take shape.
Hello AlphaMike. Using the centre of the Multi-Mission Bay for 16 MK 41 VLS Canisters Cells would defeat the the purpose of the Mission Bay entirely and IMO will not happen. If you use a Stern well for RHIBS, then where would you put the VDS & TAS? Again not feasible and won't happen. What might work is more VLS Canister cells Forward (possibly going from 32 to at least 48 Cells or even possibly 64. There could be possibly room port/stbd midships a couple of VLS Canisters where the CIWS was going to be but don't know how doing both FWD and port/stbd would affect weight and speed issues. I can see you want the CSC Frigate to be more like a Destroyer/Cruiser but I think we can leave those Ops to the "big boys". I like your thinking! Nice try though!:D
 
Last edited:

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
152
Reactions
2 259
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada

Ted Barnes

Active member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
72
Reactions
77
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
152
Reactions
2 259
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Yet you post it on Canadian Naval review four days later like its a revelation and point out the 24 VLS........
I had not posted that info on CNR before. I happen to be a member of CNR much longer than I have been on DefenceHub and have written several articles for their magazine in the past. What and when I post on CNR for the forum members to comment on is neither here nor there and should not be anyone's concern. Let's just stick to DefenceHub issues Ted and leave other forums out of the equation. Enough said!;)
 

Ted Barnes

Active member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
72
Reactions
77
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
I had not posted that info on CNR before. I happen to be a member of CNR much longer than I have been on DefenceHub and have written several articles for their magazine in the past. What and when I post on CNR for the forum members to comment on is neither here nor there and should not be anyone's concern. Let's just stick to DefenceHub issues Ted and leave other forums out of the equation. Enough said!;)
I guess my point is that you commented on my post here that "Seen that rendering from Lockheed Martin before so nothing new there" and right after you post the same graphic on another forum that " Notice that the 32 MK 41 VLS cells are now down to 24". Its a free country but you seem to take credit for others ideas. A person with integrity would had said "this was posted on another forum I'm on and it was noted that there was 24 VLS rather than the 32 VLS reported" . Enough said.
 

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
152
Reactions
2 259
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
I guess my point is that you commented on my post here that "Seen that rendering from Lockheed Martin before so nothing new there" and right after you post the same graphic on another forum that " Notice that the 32 MK 41 VLS cells are now down to 24". Its a free country but you seem to take credit for others ideas. A person with integrity would had said "this was posted on another forum I'm on and it was noted that there was 24 VLS rather than the 32 VLS reported" . Enough said.
OK Ted. You're right......as always. Conversation over!
 

Ted Barnes

Active member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
72
Reactions
77
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
New Graphic from the RCN confirming my prediction of 24 VLS. It still has CAMM VLS with 24 more missiles.
CSC1.PNG
 
Last edited:

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
152
Reactions
2 259
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Yes, I see that graphic on the navy.forces.gc.ca CSC Fact Sheet but only as an "Alternate" fact sheet and as I said this particular graphic is not on any Lockheed Martin website that I can find. The only Fact Sheet that I know of is the LM one that still has 32 MK 41 VLS Cells and another change is the Accommodations which seem to have gone up by 4 personnel to 208 total crew vice 204. Still very puzzling?🤔
 

Ted Barnes

Active member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
72
Reactions
77
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Yes, I see that graphic on the navy.forces.gc.ca CSC Fact Sheet but only as an "Alternate" fact sheet and as I said this particular graphic is not on any Lockheed Martin website that I can find. The only Fact Sheet that I know of is the LM one that still has 32 MK 41 VLS Cells and another change is the Accommodations which seem to have gone up by 4 personnel to 208 total crew vice 204. Still very puzzling?🤔
Not very puzzling at all and was just only released. The graphics on the LM page as you very well know show 24 VLS in the new renderings. I would think a fact sheet from the end user who pays the bills and sets the requirements would supersede anything else.
 

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
152
Reactions
2 259
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Not very puzzling at all and was just only released. The graphics on the LM page as you very well know show 24 VLS in the new renderings. I would think a fact sheet from the end user who pays the bills and sets the requirements would supersede anything else.
I'm sure this will all become clearer once the design phase is finished. IMOO, the CSC Frigate would be much better off with the 32 VLS canisters whether they were "filled" or not.😁
 

Ted Barnes

Active member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
72
Reactions
77
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
I'm sure this will all become clearer once the design phase is finished. IMOO, the CSC Frigate would be much better off with the 32 VLS canisters whether they were "filled" or not.😁
The reason why they were removed was the inclusion of torpedo's and extra mag storage which the type 26 doesn't have, the heavier Spy 7 radar and other systems. Every bit of weight saved here allows the ship to meet its speed potential. LEADMARK 2050 has the CSC operating in task groups and thus the 24 VLS sufficient. 32 would be better of course but risking the same issues AUS is having.
 

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
152
Reactions
2 259
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
The reason why they were removed was the inclusion of torpedo's and extra mag storage which the type 26 doesn't have, the heavier Spy 7 radar and other systems. Every bit of weight saved here allows the ship to meet its speed potential. LEADMARK 2050 has the CSC operating in task groups and thus the 24 VLS sufficient. 32 would be better of course but risking the same issues AUS is having.
You would have thought that if this GCS ship was an ASW frigate, that space would have been included for a Torpedo mag for the MK 54 in it's initial design? The SPY 7 V1 radar by the way is not nearly as heavy as the Aussie CEAFAR or the SPY 6 V1 although the mast being extended on the CSC Frigate concerns me, as I was thinking the mast may be too top heavy, but.....maybe not as the naval engineers would have taken that into account. I can understand the need to save weight for speed, but torpedo mags on both sides of the ship would not be that great weight wise nor would an empty 8 cell MK 41 VLS bank and probably would not substantially affect speed potential. My thoughts anyway. Cheers!:giggle:
 

Ted Barnes

Active member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
72
Reactions
77
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
You would have thought that if this GCS ship was an ASW frigate, that space would have been included for a Torpedo mag for the MK 54 in it's initial design? The SPY 7 V1 radar by the way is not nearly as heavy as the Aussie CEAFAR or the SPY 6 V1 although the mast being extended on the CSC Frigate concerns me, as I was thinking the mast may be too top heavy, but.....maybe not as the naval engineers would have taken that into account. I can understand the need to save weight for speed, but torpedo mags on both sides of the ship would not be that great weight wise nor would an empty 8 cell MK 41 VLS bank and probably would not substantially affect speed potential. My thoughts anyway. Cheers!:giggle:
It is a ASW ship along with being everything else. The point is the original design of the type 26 only has a torpedo magazine to accommodate torpedo's for its own helo. The CSC has to have extra space for torpedo's for its helo and onboard launchers. Quite aware of the difference in weight of both radars, thus the reason why we picked it, it still comes with a weight cost. Yes the height of the new mast was taken into account and changed the CG of the ship significantly and another reason why the 8 VLS was omitted along with the danger of affecting speed. Every weight added has an effect and more often enough detrimental to the overall stability of the GM of the ship.
 

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
152
Reactions
2 259
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
It is a ASW ship along with being everything else. The point is the original design of the type 26 only has a torpedo magazine to accommodate torpedo's for its own helo. The CSC has to have extra space for torpedo's for its helo and onboard launchers. Quite aware of the difference in weight of both radars, thus the reason why we picked it, it still comes with a weight cost. Yes the height of the new mast was taken into account and changed the CG of the ship significantly and another reason why the 8 VLS was omitted along with the danger of affecting speed. Every weight added has an effect and more often enough detrimental to the overall stability of the GM of the ship.
I did not know that the torp mag on the British Type 26 was only for their EH 101's. Canada would never have an ASW ship Torp Mag that could not fire Torps from both on-board and for our "new" CH 148's. Our Halifax class has always had that capability.
 

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
152
Reactions
2 259
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Hi folks! Here is the latest update as of 04 March 2022 for the CSC Type 26 Frigate weapons & systems design. Notice that the number of MK 41 VLS Cells has been dropped to 24 Cells vice 32. Also the mast is much taller. The crew size seems to have increased as well from 204 to 208 personnel. Also notice the tonnage has increased to 8,080 tonnes although that will not be the full-load weight (probably around 9,400 tonnes). If any forum members can add or subtract from my "guesses" please let me know. Cheers!

1. 1 X LM Solid State 3D Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) "S" Band Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR)-SPY 7 (V) 1 Phased Array Air Search Radar-Confirmed by Lockheed Martin (LM).
2. 1 X Solid State AESA "X" Band Illumination Radar supported by MacDonald Dettwiller Associates (MDA) in Richmond British Columbia-below the SPY 7 radar mast, with integration into the CMS 330 system-this may be an MDA built radar or IMO it may be an existing radar from Thales (possibly the Sea Fire 500 AESA Phased Array Radar) however MDA is not talking. Any enlightenment on this radar from any forum members, would be appreciated.
3. "X" & "S" Bands Navigation Radars.
4. MacDonald Dettwiller Associates (MDA)-Electronic Warfare Suite System & Chaff launchers.
5. MacDonald Dettwiller Associates (MDA)-Laser Warfare Defence System (again MDA is not talking).
6. 24 x MK 41 strike length VLS-ESSM2, SM II/IIIC-SM3/6 (fitted for, but not with); Raytheon Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles (TLAM).
7. Combat Information Management Systems-Links 11/16/22/GCCS-M/ Mode 5S Identification Friend or Foe (IFF).
8. Light Weight (LW) MK 54 Torpedo system and magazine with twin launcher tubes.
9. Sea Spider anti-torpedo system (Magellan/TKMS)
10. 6 x 4 ExLS VLS-Aft of the funnel (Sea Ceptor, quad-packed) for CIADS.
11. 2 x 4 Quad packs Kongsberg NSM-Port/Stbd Above Mission Bay.
12. Main Gun: 1 x 5 inch Leonardo Oto Melara 127mm Light Weight (LW) Land Attack and Anti-Air Vulcano gun. This gun will confer the CSC ships with the ability to fire extended-range, precision-guided Vulcano munitions – both in guided long-range and the ballistic extended-range versions – and conventional ammunition.
13. Secondary Guns: 2 x MARLIN 30 Stabilized Rapid Fire 30mm 174 ATK MK44 Naval Gun Systems (from Leonardo)-(Port/Stbd of Flight Deck) with RC-Remotely Controlled; COAX-"Coaxial Electro-Optical Sensor Suite" and ILOS-Independent Line Of Site able to fire HE-High Explosive/AP-Armor-Piercing/TP-Target Practice/ABM-Air Burst Munitions. ROF-Rate Of Fire-SS-Single Shot/100-200 RPMs; Day & IR Camera. MER-Maximum Effective Range-3500 Meters. Effective against any surface threats/Helicopters and Drones. Outstanding accuracy and precision; automatic Duel-Feed system; Stealthy Design; Video Tracking Capability; High reliability and ease of maintenance with no deck penetration.
14. Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) Sensor Netting-Integrated Cyber Defence System; Integrated Bridge & Navigation System from OSI.
15. Internal/External Communications Suite-HF/UHF/SHF/VHF/SATCOM from L3 Harris.
16. Electro Optical & Infrared Systems; Radio/Radar Electronic Support Measures (ESM) to include: Frequency Identification; Laser Warning & Countermeasures System; Radar/Radio Frequency Electronic Jammers; Electronic Decoy Systems.
17 CMS: Lockheed Martin CMS 330/Aegis Combat System (ACS) in support of Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC) and possible Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capability (in the future).
18. Ultra Electronics Hull Mounted Sonar (HMS)-Ultra S2150.
19. Ultra Electronics Active/Passive Towed Array Sonar; Towed Torpedo Countermeasures-Sea Sentor S21700.
20. Sonobouy Processing System from General Dynamics with expendable Acoustic Countermeasures.
21. Combined Diesel Electric Gas Turbine (CODLOG) Propulsion System to include 1 X Rolls Royce RR/MT 30 Gas Turbine; 2 X Electronic Motors from General Electric; 4 X RR MTU Diesel Generators; Integrated Platform Management System from L3 Harris.
22. CH 148 Cyclone Sikorsky (S-92) ASW Helicopter; SKELDAR V200 UAV systems from Saab-known as CU-176 "Gargoyle".
23. Speed-approximately 27-30 kts. Statement Of Requirement (SOR) required this capability for US Carrier Battle Group (CBG) Ops.
24. Crew Compliment-208 max crew (fitted with separate female quarters)
If any member can add or subtract anything from this list, please let me know.
 

Attachments

  • CSC-GRAPHIC 04 MARCH 2022.PNG
    CSC-GRAPHIC 04 MARCH 2022.PNG
    638.5 KB · Views: 48
Last edited:

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom